6.5 LEADER IN NORTH KARELIA: MAIN FEATURES AND ACTORS
In North Karelia, the Joensuun Seudun LEADER Ry Local Action Group includes – in the current period 2007–2013 – the municipalities of Joensuu31, Liperi, Kontiolahti, Outokumpu, and Polvijärvi (Figure 18). In the previous period 2000–2006, although the area covered by the LAG was the same, it included also the municipalities of Kiihtelysvaara, Eno, and Pyhäselkä, which have all been merged with the municipality of Joensuu. The municipality of Kiihtelysvaara was merged in 2005, Eno and Pyhäselkä in 2009.
Compared to the other LAGS present in North Karelia (Vaara‐Karjalan LEADER Ry, and Jetina) the peculiarity of the Joensuun Seudun LEADER Ry is that it includes three different areas. Just outside the city of Joensuu is a zone of residential areas. Farther away is a zone of agricultural land and even farther, remotely and sparsely populated areas. Only the areas nearby the city of Joensuu are growing, while the other municipalities are losing population.
Population growth is especially concentrated within a reasonable commuting
31 The area within the city boundaries is excluded from the programme.
Surface area: 6300 Km2 Population: 56084* (2004 data)
distance, and housing is becoming an important source of livelihood for the countryside. At the same time, commuting from the city to work places in the countryside is growing. Thus the interplay between the countryside and the city is becoming bidirectional. In the areas farther away from the city, however, the number of people is diminishing by about 1.5% per year. This phenomenon is partially caused by migration, as well as by the negative ratio of births to deaths (Joensuun Seudun LEADER Yhdistys 2007).
Figure18: LAG Joensuun Seudun LEADER Ry
The Joensuun Seudun LEADER Ry Local Action Group was established in the spring of 1995 by a group of active and pioneering individuals when the first news about the LEADER approach started to circulate in Finland (LEADER Achievements…2007). Two project staff members from the Regional Council of North Karelia, along with the current Local Action Group manager, organized a meeting to select a working group to design the LEADER II strategy. The LEADER II Programme of the region was written during the summer and fall of 1995. At the outset, Joensuun Seudun LEADER was an informal association with no official status; it was a group of about 15 to 20 people with different backgrounds and networks (such as village activists, entrepreneurs, municipal officers and researchers) who collected ideas for the LEADER II development plan from their own networks. Joensuun Seudun LEADER acquired official status as a registered non‐profit association in June 1996 at a meeting of 86 participants (LEADER Achievements…2007).
During LEADER+ (2000–2006), the main goals of the programme (whose name was Aktiviinen kansalaisyhteiskunta, or active civil society) in this area were
Surface area: 11 780 Km2 Population: 35 570
improving the quality of life of people living in the countryside, and also strengthening the diversity, plurality, and activeness of its remote regions. A total number of 238 projects were funded; the LAG has funded projects with a clear ‘local’ orientation, for instance, excluding large organizations such as the North Karelia Educational Federation of Municipalities (Pohjois‐Karjalan koulutuskuntayhtymä), or Pro Agria (Joensuun Seudun LEADER Yhdistys 2007);
the goal has been to finance projects for young people and entrepreneurs within villages as well as projects which promote the idea of city residents and tourists visiting the countryside. In the Joensuun Seudun LEADER 2000–2006, the LAG board included 10 members from the municipal sector, which included the maaseudunsihteerit (countryside secretaries) and politicians at the municipal level, 17 from different organizations (mostly village associations, especially 4H‐
clubs), and 11 active local residents. Total funding amounted to about 7.5 million € (Joensuun Seudun LEADER Yhdistys 2007).
Vaara‐Karjalan LEADER includes, in the current LEADER period (2007–2013), the municipalities of Juuka, Nurmes, Valtimo, Lieksa, and Ilomantsi (Figure 19).
In comparison to the previous programming period (LEADER 2000–2006), the municipality of Tuupovaara (which nowadays is part of the municipality of Joensuu) belongs to the Joensuun Seudun LEADER. Vaara‐Karjala is characterized by abundant lakes, hills, sparse population and long distances; in its eastern parts, there are vast wilderness areas with no permanent settlement. The road network is extensive, but its condition is deteriorating. Although buses run from many villages to the local schools of the centers of the muncipalities, many routes will be reduced significantly in coming years.
Figure 19: LAG Vaara-Karjalan LEADER ry
Two other key challenges in this area are population decline and unemployment, the latter being higher than the national average. In all municipalities the death rate is higher the birth rate, and an increasing proportion of the population lives in the municipality centers of the region. At the same time, all municipalities have many so‐called holiday residents, and the number of holiday homes has increased by about 50 units a year. The greatest strengths of the region are the natural resources, local culture, tradition, natural history as well as the opportunities provided by an uncontaminated rural space where a variety of nature activities can be practiced. Possible developments for the region are the mining industry, especially in Ilomantsi and the area close to the Kainuu region.
During LEADER+, Vaara‐Karjalan LEADER funded a total of 256 projects (153 development projects and 103 enterprise projects) for a total of about 6 300 000 €.
Among the development projects, the largest number of beneficiaries was represented by a variety of village associations (105 projects), while among the enterprise projects, the highest number of applications funded consisted of the service sector (46 projects); in the years 2000–2007, the board included a total of 54 members, of which 30 were official members and 24 vice‐members (Vaara‐
Karjalan LEADER Ry 2007a; Vaara‐Karjalan LEADER Ry 2007b).
An examination of the professional background of the Finnish interviewees (or human agents), indicates that these individuals are very active; they come from civil society and they work for it; fourteen have performed varied and multiple roles in the field of rural development and/or in the agricultural sector at some stage of their working career (see Table 7); furthermore, many of the interviewees have direct experience in the village movement, both as activators and as developers.
For instance, one interviewed rural entrepreneur owns a farm and has been active in social and political life since the beginning of the 1990s. He did environmental studies and worked as a developer in the fishing industry. After moving to North Karelia, he started his own consultant firm, and in the 1990s became familiar with EU projects and the LEADER Programme. He has been a municipal councillor as well as chairman of a municipal executive board for over 10 years. This rural entrepreneur has also been a member of civic organizations and village commissions, for instance, Pohjois‐Karjalan Kylät (North Karelia Village Association) and Suomen Kylätoiminta (Finnish Village Association), and was one of the founders of the Local Action Group of Central Karelia. He knows the village actors in North Karelia quite well, as well as the three local action groups of this region. Another interesting informant’s background is that of a researcher who has worked at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in the working group that drafted LEADER II. He also worked in international organizations, in particular the International Fund for Agricultural Development and in the EU Commission. As for LEADER, this researcher has been involved in some training activities and national evaluations. A staff member of Pohjois‐Karjalan Kylät has also been quite active in
his working career. He has been involved in many associations and federations, with some working experience on national campaigns to collect money and develop cooperation. His first experience with LEADER was in a working group to design the LEADER Programme for the local action group of Vaara‐Karjalan LEADER. In that Local Action Group, he has been a board member as a rural resident, a representative of a village association, and a municipality member. A rural entrepreneur in the forest sector has both experience as a member of the Joensuun Seudun LEADER executive committee as well as chairman of the same Local Action Group.
Table 7: Multiple role of North Karelian rural developers
Senior researcher: has been village activist, involved in LEADER (Joensuun Seudun LEADER)
Researcher: has been civil servant and trainee in EU Commission
High-ranking civil servant: has been involved in LEADER (other LEADER Local Action Group)
Representative of Village Action Association: has been rural researcher, LEADER experience at central level
Representative of Village Action Association: has been involved in LEADER (other LEADER Local Action Group)
Representative of the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners:
has been involved in other LEADER LAG Rural secretary: has been involved in LEADER Rural secretary: has been involved in LEADER Rural secretary: has been involved in LEADER
Regional village coordinator: has been involved in other LEADER Local Action Group Rural entrepreneur/municipal councillor: has been involved in other LEADER Local Action Group
Village developer: has been involved in LEADER Village activist: has been involved in LEADER Project manager: has been involved in LEADER
On the basis of thematic analysis (whose code levels are shown in Figure 20), the empirical data extracted from the interviews suggest that the LEADER approach in this region has been characterized by two main overarching and inter‐
dependent themes: subpolitics and villages. Regarding the “subpolitics” theme, the key interpretative codes are cooperation and competitiveness, while for the
“villages” theme, the main interpretive code is “cultural and social power of villages”. A village movement officer remarks that “without the village
movement and villages, we would not have any LEADER system in Finland”
(interview 9). One rural researcher and activist (interview 3) argues that when the Joensuun Seudun LEADER was established most of the people involved were village activists who had a core role in starting and running this EU partnership.
A staff member of the North Karelia Village Association (interview 19), defines the village movement in North Karelia as very strong:
“while other village regional organizations have between 20 to 70 associations, in North Karelia there are more than 200. It is a characteristic of North Karelian society that we have village associations and committees … North Karelia, Kainuu, North Ostrobothnia … some of these eastern and northern regions have very strong village movements. In the 1970s and 1980s, North Karelian society and economy suffered, and village movement was something by the people for the people. The lääni (province) was working in the villages, we had its support, and now that of the Maakuntaliitto (Regional Council)”.
Figure 20: Thematic analysis for the North Karelia case study
SUBPOLITICS VILLAGES
COOPERATION COMPETITIVENESS
CULTURAL AND SOCIAL POWER OF VILLAGES
Rural resident Local
development Local level
New
Rural actor
Rural
Village Village
movement Village
associations Village activists Volunteers
Free organizations
Village elders Communities
Sparsely populated areas North Karelian
society Overarching themes:
Interpretive codes:
Descriptive codes:
Regional planning Registered
associations
Tri-partite structure Passive
actor
Financial line of rural development LAGS as rural
NGO’s
Thus the village, along with its social and cultural power, can be considered a key structure in the North Karelian context, and, as shown in Figure 21 (Debate 1), its interaction with the LEADER Programme social structure has produced a variety of changes.
DEBATE 1
Interviewee 1: it was a real revolution that associations based on volunteers (and not politicians) received money for development purposes.
Interviewee 17: before LEADER it was really difficult for villages to find sponsors for their projects and plans. Usually it was the municipalities who funded villages. During the past ten years, the financial situation of municipalities has substantially weakened, and they have not had the money for the kinds of projects that are now funded by LEADER.
Interviewee 23: here [in North Karelia] LEADER funding made village projects possible.
Villages quickly realized that LEADER was one good way to get more money to develop themselves. LEADER offers resources and a new development model/working method … It becomes part of the regions’ livelihood strategies … small actors, associations and communities in particular get their own development strategy.
Interviewee 4: village activists were able to bypass municipalities and old political leaders … a trans-municipal level and consolidation of village action came about.
Interviewee 17: LEADER has activated the villages to function by themselves, they are not just waiting for ready-made things … villages are looking for alternative ways, there are other ways of doing things than just with the support of the municipality.
Interviewee 19: on a broader perspective, which crosses national borders, there are good possibilities that the Finnish village movement could be a model for organizing local development movements in other countries such as Poland or Hungary, which are witnessing the same type of problems that Finland experienced in the 1970s or 1980s.
Interviewee 27: there is the risk that initiative and new ideas will run out. New ideas won’t emerge forever because the population base is not big enough.
Interviewee 22: you need a new, younger gang there. The countryside is not supposed to be a pensioners’ club; you need younger people and a renewal of the group. No one needs to get too exhausted; everyone needs time to rest every now and then.
Interviewee 1: at the beginning it was a bit difficult to make villagers understand that if they wanted to have the funds, they had to have a plan for using it and use the money as they have planned.
Interviewee 19: there is the risk of village associations becoming clubs of village elders or cultural clubs ... the issue is the extent to which such village associations can mobilize youth in sparsely populated areas.
Interviewee 20: active actors are getting older; there should be more young people involved in the process.
Interviewee 1: the whole system is based on active people … if you are active you are a winner, if you are passive you are a loser. It is not a very democratic system, it is a bit opposed to the idea of the welfare state.
Interviewee 20: the passive people are always the problem, if you design a good project
for a village or region (thanks to the active people) and if you have good leaders for the projects, then some passive residents are drawn in ... at least to some extent ... well-designed projects have also increased the population of certain villages ... people have moved in due to the new activities.
Interviewee 11: agricultural policy makes more winners and losers in the Finnish countryside.
Figure 21: Interaction between LEADER and the village social structure
At first sight, the empirical material collected suggests that the most apparent change brought by the LEADER Programme has been the opportunity for villages to have access to new resources for their projects and plans, especially in light of the municipalities’ financial difficulties; however, in a more careful inspection, the LEADER programme has brought competitiveness, shifting the responsibility of development to the local level. It is no longer the duty of politicians to handle development; it is the unrepresentative world of sub‐
politics that handles projects and plans.
If, on the one hand, competition rewards the skilful and active agents, at the same time it inevitably excludes others. Not all village associations, as a rural researcher remarks (interview 4), have been able to sieze the opportunity of LEADER funding in North Karelia. North Karelian villages can be divided in three groups: one‐third of the 230 villages present in the territory can be classified as very active, one‐third as running the basic village activities, and one‐third as inactive. Firstly, a few interviewees have suggested that some villages did not want to commit themselves to the LEADER process and its related bureaucracy, they wanted to remain free organizations. Secondly, when villages did become registered associations, not all of them were willing to start development projects. This has depended on whether people in the villages are active and whether they have time to commit to local development (or as a rural secretary remarks, there is a ‘community spirit’ within the village). Those villages that already had professional and managerial skills have had greater opportunities to access funding (interviews 19 & 20). Another important message that can be extracted from this debate is provided by the structural weaknesses of the contemporary countryside, which are caused by increasing ageing and policies which have been favouring the secularization of agriculture, uprooting this activity from its historical bonds to the territory. The latter are the key problems which, to a varying degree, exacerbate the polarization between the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ agents. Such polarization would occur regardless of the LEADER programme, which represents only a small fund within rural development resources.
6.6 LEADER IMPLEMENTATION: THE ROLE OF LOCAL